Re: Request for voting SIG

From: Axel Thimm <Axel Thimm ATrpms net>

To: EPEL development disccusion <epel-devel-list redhat com>

Subject: Re: Request for voting SIG

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:59:56 +0100

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:41:20AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Axel Thimm schrieb:
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:00:55AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Axel Thimm schrieb:
> >>> So we should get things clarified/formalized to be able to *work* on
> >>> issues instead of discussing them. Let fesco appoint a group and setup
> >>> the framwork of our mandate.
> >> The EPEL SIG is afaics appointed by FESCo to work on EPEL.
> > Which means that we can finally initiate a vote on fedora-usrmgmt
> > acceptance or banning?
>
> I'd say no (but that's just my opinion) -- until now the SIG worked
> mostly like this afaics: SIG members simply do stuff and keep the other
> members up2date with what they do and as long as nobody yells everything
> is fine.
Doesn't the threads on fedora-usrmgmt look like a massive yelling? I'm
sure if it comes to a vote the majority is against the imported
fedora-usermgmt stuff.
> That's a whole lot easier for a getting stuff done in this startup
> phase. But is we start to have controversial topics with real
> battle-voting's then I'd say we have to get a lot of process in place
> first. E.g.
That's not a battle-voting, it's just a conventional vote.
> - where to vote (IRC, mailing lists)
both, of course.
> - how many voters have to vote +1 to accept something
majority. With 13 members that makes 7 votes. What else would there be
to discuss about? Or do you apply as a benevolent dictator? ;)
> - who coordinates the votes (chaos would arise if everybody calls out
> for voting's )
Every sig member, there is not more chaos than discussing things w/o
ever voting. Voting will *reduce* chaos.
> - control who becomes a SIG member (having voting with more then 20
> people becomes problematic)
fesco nominates sig group, we can aid in suggesting the sig group
members. I don't know if that has already happened though, your quote
above says that fesco already appointed this sig on epel, so probably
this step isn't needed anymore.
There are now 13 people registred as sig members, that's a healthy
size and fortunately an odd number, so the quorum is 7 votes.
> - announce voting's beforehand and give members enough time to vote
> - some other stuff I'm forgetting now
> That's a lot of process to put in place and to document.
I think everything is rather trivial and already in place, or do you
really want to discuss whether we should vote only on IRC or IRC/list
or whether we want majority votes?
> I agree that we need that sooner or later, but I must say I had
> hoped we could finish this startup phase without all that overhead.
A steeringless project is inevitably following Brown's law rather than
being productive. I certainly feel less than productive with the
usermgmt stuff taking so much of my epel time.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net